The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Back in the day, when I was a member of the FOMC (1991-2004) I occasionally had an opportunity to push back against a push for greater transparency surrounding monetary policy. I was usually in the minority in thinking that transparency can be taken too far—that the reduction in flexibility for policymakers and the one-way bet opportunities for markets were too high a price to pay for any perceived benefits. I opined on that subject publicly a while back when the FOMC recently began publishing its collective forecasts (projections?) for macroeconomic variables.

The federal funds rate is considered by most as the single instrument of monetary policy, now that everyone seems to have forgotten about money growth as a more important instrument and measure. Even if there is a tight range around individual federal funds forecasts, they will put monetary policy on a pre-announced trajectory that may turn out to be flawed, but will be more difficult to adjust once announced. That problem is compounded with members making their own forecasts of policy public since it will cause them to stick to their forecasts too long after the need to adjust them becomes obvious to everyone else. Nobody wants to be labeled a flip-flopper, not even a member of the FOMC.

Some press speculation has already posited that the change is being made to boost economic activity by reassuring the public and markets that low rates will prevail for a long time. In my humble opinion, there has already been too much reassurance along those lines. After all, it’s was several months ago that Mr. Bernanke and Company announced that rates would likely be unusually low through mid-2013, still 18 months away. The FOMC should be looking for a way to slip out from under that promise, not dig the hole deeper.

The economy is looking better—much better. While a “tight” monetary policy probably won’t be in order for some time, to me that doesn’t necessarily imply near-zero federal funds rates. The “financial repression,” meaning the loss of a return on saving and savings, may not be a serious matter during a normal period of easy money during a normal recession. After a few years, however, it must be taken more seriously.

Mr. Bernanke is talented enough to figure out a way to allow rates to rise a tad while preventing a surge in money growth. He needs to do that, and to do that he needs more freedom of action, not less.